Here's a question about gun ownership & hunting..Originally Posted by flippy
If you only require the weapon for the occasions you go out hunting for wild animals, why can't the weapons be stored at a Police station & signed out to the owner once they request the weapon for the hunt? Keeping the weapon in your house, if it's just for hunting, makes no sense....
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, why should I?
Light up the darkness.
You're kidding right? The U.S. has a constitution that says "the right to bear arms" shall not be infringed. Most people here that have guns don't just use them to hunt. We use them for self defense. The government doesn't have the right to ask citizens to keep their guns anywhere. It's none of their business because it is a "right".
Also to your point about being jumped by 8 guys (which is used just to set up a straw man). IF 8 guys came into the house they generally won't stay when they hear gun shots. I don't have to kill them all (even though I do use a 10 shot mag.). Which totally misses my point about the taser. The taser makes no sound and won't keep others from attacking. It is a fire and forget weapon. It only works once. Even if they see their friend getting tased they know the guys doesn't have a chest full of them so there is no reason to be afraid.
So because it's a 'right' written into the constitution, it should never, ever be questioned as to if it is for the best of societies needs or not? Maybe I'm lucky- I live in a society where I LITERALLY know nobody that owns a gun that is used for 'self defence'. Nobody. Not one. And I don't know anyone that has ever said "you know, the fact that a criminal might have a gun makes me wish I was packing a Magnum".
We have crime. Some of it is violent crime. But as a society, I can't remember ever hearing anyone bemoan the lack of firearms in our houses to 'protect ourselves'.
Is Australian law more correct that US law? Don't know. But it seems to work pretty well, and I can't really remember too many cases of shootings, either intentional or accidental.
"IF 8 guys came into the house they generally won't stay when they hear gun shots. I don't have to kill them all (even though I do use a 10 shot mag.)"
I think you missed the point of my 'straw man argument'. At what point does it stop? A single shot weapon can't protect you, neither can a six shot... let's go 10... let's pack an automatic weapon... at what point is someone 'safe' because they carry a gun?
It's good to know, though, that you only need kill 1 or 2 of these guys to scare the rest off...
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, why should I?
Light up the darkness.
Obviously you missed the point of your own strawman. Robbers can't be afraid of a taser. It stops when the robbers run away. I know you were trying to make a math point but that just takes away from the human issue. A group of robbers aren't going to lose 2 people and still try to break into a house. It just doesn't work that way. Again you are looking for the best way not to use a gun. That maybe your culture and that's fine. But here we have guns all over the place. It's our culture. You may not like it but that's just too bad. It goes against our laws to have the government lock up our guns just so other people can feel better.
I personally don't care about Australia's laws or any other countries laws. I know what our laws allow and it works very well.
No idea. I don't hunt. But I would think having your gun stored somewhere would be inconvenient.
Exactly. And that inconvenience could be the difference from being mad at your neighbour & shooting him in your immediate rage, or being mad at your neighbour, getting in your car, driving to the place the gun is stored, getting it out, then driving back & shooting your neighbour after having time to think it through a bit...
As for inconvenience in regards to going hunting... how many people are hunting in their backyard?
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off, why should I?
Light up the darkness.
Interesting point. Although I'm not sure how often people shoot each other with rifles/shotguns vs handguns. It's not like guys are walking around the streets with their muzzleloader. Plus you can't easily store your shotgun in your nightstand. Often they're in the attic and not as easily accessible.
I think the trick would be to get people to store their handguns (for personal safety/defense) at the local police office. That way when they called 911, they could tell them they have an issue and could you please bring my gun with you? Unfortunately many folks have their gun on them at all times. So they don't even have to ever call 911. We effectively live in a society of untrained police officers.
I remember many years ago, a lot of people just carried mace. Now it seems like a lot of women carry a gun in their purse.
I've never felt particularly strongly about this issue until Hurricane Sandy. With a few days of power outages, people got pretty crazy pretty quickly. I knew a lot of people in impacted areas, and heard a lot of stories of things like people stealing generators. In a situation like that, where you have taken the necessary precautions and somebody who is unprepared is putting your family at risk, I absolutely believe in the right to bear arms and to protect your family.
I agree. You never know what situation you might find yourself in and I see no reason I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I own a 9mm, and a FN swat shotgun for home defense. I also agree with Vader in the sense that I'm not much concerned about Australian law or law of other countries in general.
On the other hand, I would like to see it MUCH harder to obtain a gun, and see certain guns banned. I believe the sellers of guns should do their due diligence when selling to assure the gun being purchased is going into the right hands. If people have to take classes, and dealers could face serious criminal offense for selling to individuals proven violent...then I'm ok with those kinds of changes.
Very much agree with exactly what you said. There is no reason any law abiding citizen should not be able to own a gun. The problem is the ease of obtaining and the lack of required training. I spent twenty years in the military and have probably fired more rounds (every weapon imaginable but mostly .45cal and 9mm pistols and M16s) than most people will in their lives. I can tell you that my last choice for home defense is a pistol because of the amount of training it requires to be proficient especially under stress and rapid response. That is why I have multiple shotguns and rifles but no pistols.
Much like having the ability to operate a car there should be mandatory training and testing introduced into the process before you purchase. From an economic standpoint it would open a whole new industry to generate business and employment. But more importnatly it would provide assurances that people who exercised their rights to own a gun were qualified to own it.
I also could care less what other country's laws are related to guns. Their culture, history and social environments are not the same as ours. Just look at the southwestern part of the US. How many other countries have people living in remote rural areas where armed "coyotes" are smuggling people and drugs across their ranch lands? Not exactly what they deal with in Canberra or London! Should these citizens be defensless against these violent criminals?
Last edited by Oviedo; 07-24-2013 at 02:44 PM.
"My team, may they always be right, but right or wrong...MY TEAM!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks